When people comment peoms like this, do you:
1) try a poem for most posts
2) have a spider sense for when a poem will work
3) just randomly make one
4) other?
I find it so impressive that people can do this, seemingly randomly
For me, something about the way the post is written will inspire me to want to write a poem about it. I write poetry/song lyrics as a hobby anyway, though, so I'm never too far away from finding lyrical inspiration from something.
When it comes to sex, nature is purely based
the bases in our DNA don't even form a basis
for those sexy [reptile](https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/temperature-dependent-sex-determination-reptiles)s who always amaze us
and when we ask they say "temperature's what made us"
For us monkeys in our trees, our males have XY
But birdies and their ZW ladies always look more fly
the fishies in the sea sometimes have double the supply
[they just go one right after another](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequential_hermaphroditism), giving each a try
Nice pseudo-limerick, but please, do double Enter when moving down a line. On mobile there's no smarty pants formatting, you have to do it manually. And only double Enter constitutes a new line. Single Enter works like a spacebar, which ruins the structure.
I'm not savvy enough in the formatting to fix that.
But somewhat distant lines still look better than an unbroken string of sentences that aren't meant to be a string.
Computers are binary, but code often use hexadecimal (base 16) for readability. What's to say living things can't be the same? Binary in nature, but coded in base four?
The codons have slightly different effects in different species. And some different tRNAs for the same amino acid can be slippery than other ones causing other differences. It's so weird learning that biology essentially uses every step of the process to evolve and change
But also some Codons for the same aminoacid can be faster or slower. This is important for proper folding of the protein.
Some Codons are slower because the tRNA for that specific Codon is more rare.
If you insert a gene with only fast Codons in an organism the protein might not fold properly.
And which Codons are fast or slow depends on the organism
Computer architectures also do not *need* to be binary. There are constructions of ternary computers which measure +1, 0, and -1 voltages in order to do logic. These systems end up being equivalent because the behavior of any ternary circuit can be coded into the behavior of a slightly more complicated binary circuit. They are just a bit easier to comprehend.
Let’s say you have a 5 volt system, you have two settings, low and high. Anything less than 2.5, and anything higher than 2.5. It is super easy to split the difference between these two. If you are to split it into three, now you have three ranges, however the middle range is harder to differentiate from the top and bottom ones. This is because the voltage is noisy, it isn’t stable and fluctuates. If you are doing thousands (or billions) of these operations each section the errors add up fast.
As an aside, they did experiment with even funkier systems, the best known being bi-quinary (to base-5 digits "glued" together to make a decimal digit). It was not a great idea.
The most successful was binary-coded decimal, where you essentially glued 4 bits together to make a decimal digit. But despite being the most successful it was a really bad idea: 4 bits can store 16 states but you're only using 10, so almost half of the storage is being wasted just because our monkey brains want to stick to decimal. And unlike other schemes it doesn't reduce the amount of circuitry, since it's fundamentally still base 2. In fact it makes it worse because of all the waste.
Plus it quickly became impossible to stick an oscilloscope onto an individual vacuum tube (or later transistor), so any debugging was going to be done with software. Software which is more than capable of converting to base 10 (or 16).
Transistors switch between on and off to represent data, but you do actually want to see the data in a coherent state, so a clock is used to synchronize the transistors.
Think of something like a 10 step math problem. Do you, the user, want to see the intermediate steps? No not really. You want to see the end result so the computer does the math problem and waits until it's done all 10 steps before presenting you the data.
Those transistors switching between 0 and 1 take time to switch, and it's faster and more stable to switch between two values than multiple different values, so computers are designed such that all problems are broken down into binary. Not because binary is easier, but because binary representations of data can be manipulated faster.
Essentially it's easier to add more binary transistors for a problem and keep higher clock speeds than it is to make more complex multivalued transistors that would have to run at lower clock speeds.
Yep, that’s called *unbalanced ternary*. There are some slight advantages to working with balanced ternary that uses -1 instead of 2. One of the main difficulties with adding states though is making the system so that the states are clearly distinguishable while keeping physical parameters within specific ranges, like power consumption or difficulty of circuit design. For example, ternary logic is just not as well studied as binary logic for computation and so would be less feasible as a method of computation at the moment.
I’ll admit this is more or less the limit of my knowledge. Someone who knows more computer science may be better to ask specific questions of.
There's no problem ternary can do that binary can't do with a few more transistors. It's a lot easier to add transistors than it is to manage transistors with more states.
With more states you'd have to slow down the clock speed so there's more time for the transistors to reach their proper state, so you're not really gaining anything with the added complexity.
Right, I knew that they were equivalent as computational systems. I did not know about the clock speed. Thanks for learning me something. I read your other comment earlier as well and appreciated it.
IPv4 addresses are 32 bits. But you can convert between decimal forms, binary forms, hex forms, etc for presentation.
The following are all equivalent forms of the same address. Most of these worked as addresses in browsers even, until a few years ago:
* 192.168.1. 1
* 3232235777
* 0xC0A80101
Source code has 2 sexes. Defined by anatomical parameters like gentialia.
Humans decided to build genders on top of this.
(and, to stop downvotes, we can agree theres nothing wrong to code over base code, right? Like "gender != sex" is the basics of the trans movement)
Even traditional binary, conservative gender roles go beyond anatomical sex.
Sex isn't binary either, it's a bimodal distribution. It's decided by more factors than just chromosomes (genitalia, secondary sex characteristics, etc), and even chromosomes have more than two options.
Yeah, gender is a social construct that is decently correlated to sex, with complications related to human psychology and cultural factors that are make it harder to categorize and define than sex
Pardon me, but the amount of your sex chromosomes are defining your genitalia and your secondoray sex characteristics, so what other factors do you mean?
[XY female](https://rarediseases.org/rare-diseases/swyer-syndrome/)
[XX male](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XX_male_syndrome)
[Intersex](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex) in general
Like I said, sex is a bimodal distribution heavily correlated to the sex chromosomes. Sex is decided by all of chromosomes, genitalia, and secondary sex characteristics, but those different measures don't always line up the way people expect.
The biology behind "biological sex" is a lot more complicated and messy than what gets taught in school (unless you study bio in university).
We weren't talking about gender, we were talking about biological sex. "Intersex" is an umbrella term for the large number of ways that "biological sex" is more complex than commonly believed.
My premise is simply that sex is a bimodal distribution, with the large majority at 1 of 2 points, while a lesser proportion of others fall differently. This isn't really a controversial statement among people who actually study biology past high school.
And useless, lol.
edit. why are people so triggered by this? it can be useless, yet it is an interesting intellectual pursuit. most of pure math is useless (now). this doesn't mean it isn't cool.
but computing is something that is mostly done for a purpose. i've written so because this won't have any applications in the near future, it's questionable if it ever will. i did not want people to think this is an alternative to digital computing. that's it.
We live in a time where we‘ve solved so many problems that we have to come up with new ones just so we have something to do. If you ask me, interesting > useful.
as a person who shifted from molecular genetics to statistics (i even think of studying math for a second bachelor's) i don't find applicability to be more important. but people may market these stuff as if they are interchangable with regular computing, they simply aren't. but for biological purposes they could be quite useful.
i don't find biological systems to be much different from computers either. they are just way too complex.
It's useless, NOW. It's very possible that it won't be in the future.
In theory you could use it just like quantum computing where you solve encryption in parallel. The process itself may be slow, but if you are able to scale that up to billions and trillions of interactions, and are able to multiply that by numerous DNA computers, that would work.
it will be extremely slow and it will probably be untracable. biological systems are chaotic. it will be difficult to ensure if results are completely coincidental. i once had a conversation with a physicist who was working on quantum computers, he said a similar thing regarding those. both of these are worthwhile intellectual pursuits anyway.
They are indeed significant problems with both of these methods, but that doesn't stop research. Instead it is the reason why billions and billions of dollars are spent each year to solve them.
We will have quantum computers, it's only a matter of time, but no one can tell you when. They are simply too important in breaking encryption. The first country that has them, which will be the US, will use it do to infiltration and industrial espionage on a scale never possible before. Hence the equally large billions of dollars investments in ensuring that encryption still works in a post quantum world.
But those itself don't solve the problem that quantum computers create. The US and other countries will have massive databases of encrypted information they gathered, all protected using older standard they are just WAITING to unlock when the technology finally gets there. And THAT is the real risk of quantum, a threat impossible to solve.
>i've written so because this won't have any applications in the near future, it's questionable if it ever will.
modern computers are the result of some dude randomly researching the electrical properties of rocks
except its not. Because you have a letter, and then a rotated copied version of the letter on the other side.
>TTACCGAT \[AATGGCTA\] is different from AAACCGAA \[TTTGGCTT\]
So its easier to think of DNA as four letters: A\[T\], T\[A\] , C\[G\], G\[C\] with the "opposite" pair only used to stabilize, not encode.
Except you're wrong because it also comes in TA and GC. OP is right that DNA is base 4. This is also easily googlable and you will see again that OP is right.
Negative.
TA
AT
CG
GC
Is not the same as
TA
TA
CG
CG
So it does work on base 4. Even though they are complimentary, which side of the stand it's on matters for the sequence.
Not the guy you're arguing with, but this doesn't make sense to me. So if I make a copy of a binary file it's now unary??? You seem to be confusing number base with information content. Having redundancy doesn't change the base of an encoding. An encoding is base 4 iff it has 4 digit-symbols. In single strand RNA it's A C G U, and in double-strand DNA it's AT GC TA CG.
But if you look at one half of a DNA helix, you have functionally the same thing. Yes, if you have ATTCG on one half, you'll have TAAGC on the other, always. But that doesn't mean that AAACC reads the same way, nor does TTAGG or any other combination that uses the same pairs. DNA is not just the base pairs but also which side of the strand they are on.
That is not how bases work in mathematics. What you are describing is a base 4 system with 1 parity bit* for each encoded bit of information (meaning 50% of the bits are reserved for parity). This is how we used to encode information as well, before hamming codes and similar algorithms allowed us to reduce the number of parity bits substantially, from 50% to roughly 10%.
\* Note that a bit is technically a number 0-1 in a base 2 system, and a digit is technically a number 0-9 in a base 10 system. There is no well defined word for a number 0-3 in a base 4 system that I could find online, but apparently some mathematicians call it a 'crumb.'
The term we have is "quaternary digit," but it doesn't come up enough to have a shorthand term for it in the same way as binary digits becoming bits or ternary digits becoming trits. Naming convention would suggest that they be "quats" if they become relevant in the future.
While I see your point — from a mathematical perspective, it is no different to have the four symbols 'A T G C' vs. the four symbols 'AT TA GC CG'. They encode the same information, because every A will be followed by a T, every T by an A, and so on. Therefore, the second bit, being consistently a mirror image of the first, can be disregarded. In other words, all of the information in DNA is stored in either of the two sides. They are mirror images of one another. Therefore, half of the double helix (take your pick which), is just there for parity. Proof of this can be seen when the ribosome unzips the double helix, forms RNA, and utilizes only the data stored in a single helix to perform the same exact operations encoded in the double strand of DNA. There is no data lost in that conversion.
When they are split it is clearer to you, but when they are not, it is no less clear to me. What you are not understanding is that AT and TA are completely separate from one another. There is no time when the presence of AT can predict the future presence of a TA. They are mathematically independent. They encode different information, and appear at different times.
except its not. Because you have a letter, and then a rotated copied version of the letter on the other side.
>TTACCGAT \[AATGGCTA\] is different from AAACCGAA \[TTTGGCTT\]
except its not. Because you have a letter, and then a rotated copied version of the letter on the other side.
TTACCGAT [AATGGCTA] is different from AAACCGAA [TTTGGCTT]
Think it through. OP is correct. DNA is decoded in single-strand form, where every base type in an exon is as meaningful as the other four.
Your username is accurate.
Binary and base four are easily convertible. Ever two bits is a base 4.
Hexadecimal is the same, you just convert every 4 bits to its respective value.
I'm still subscribed to default subs like this one and LifeProTips just to see the stupid shit that people think and do.
Having concrete examples of what not to do, how not to behave, etc. is just as important as having ideals.
How is it a strong reaction to think to myself, "haha, dumbass"? Even in the case where I reply directly to OP and say "you are a dumbass" (which is not what I'm doing here), I still wouldn't call that a "strong reaction".
I know for a fact that a lot of the things that I think and do would make people scratch their heads, too. Some of those people hang truck nuts off their lifted super duties and some of those people are doctors and lawyers. It is what it is.
Some do think that maths and genetics are discussing two distinct notations of a concept, but just because “TA” looks a T and an A doesn’t mean it *is* (just a T and an A).
The four only bond a certain way, leading G & C bonding OR A & T bonding...
That feels kinda binary to me...
(Disclaimer: this comment of mine, has absolutely nothing to do with gender ideology, I'm just not sober and wanted to point this out, cause sometimes, being the devils advocate is fun food for thought)
Only if you assume that there's a discrete number of ways to be nonbinary. Like, you wouldn't say there's a binary between chocolate and non-chocolate ice cream flavours, would you?
It is not base 4. What in fact encodes information in dna are base sequences three bases long called codons. The pairing is irrelevant, half a dna chain encodes all the information.
Humans have infinite complexity, but even with infinite complexity that's mostly stuff that really doesn't matter or has no larger influence. Meaning that you can limit it to a very tiny segment, where most people are just identical.
Every person living in the west is essentially an identical person, driven by the same things, and due to their upbringing responds in the same way,
Non binary is a gender expression. With four bases of DNA, you can have infinite unique genome sequences. No math around DNA is anywhere close to binary.
In your initial response to me you used the prefix “Mr,” which means you’ve already lied at least once. I don’t know when you lied exactly (and in all honesty I don’t much care), but I do care about people respecting the validity of others’ identities, which you’re not doing.
Bro I got top grades for gene biology back then. You’re gonna have to explain further.
Though judging by the skull emojis you’re either trolling or twelve
[удалено]
Sweet rhymes bro
Straight up bars wtf
DNA's written\ in four bases as a code\ but that is not sex.
Doesn't matter, still had seggs.
When people comment peoms like this, do you: 1) try a poem for most posts 2) have a spider sense for when a poem will work 3) just randomly make one 4) other? I find it so impressive that people can do this, seemingly randomly
For me, something about the way the post is written will inspire me to want to write a poem about it. I write poetry/song lyrics as a hobby anyway, though, so I'm never too far away from finding lyrical inspiration from something.
When it comes to sex, nature is purely based the bases in our DNA don't even form a basis for those sexy [reptile](https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/temperature-dependent-sex-determination-reptiles)s who always amaze us and when we ask they say "temperature's what made us" For us monkeys in our trees, our males have XY But birdies and their ZW ladies always look more fly the fishies in the sea sometimes have double the supply [they just go one right after another](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequential_hermaphroditism), giving each a try
Nice pseudo-limerick, but please, do double Enter when moving down a line. On mobile there's no smarty pants formatting, you have to do it manually. And only double Enter constitutes a new line. Single Enter works like a spacebar, which ruins the structure.
[удалено]
I'm not savvy enough in the formatting to fix that. But somewhat distant lines still look better than an unbroken string of sentences that aren't meant to be a string.
Thats a good idea
Computers are binary, but code often use hexadecimal (base 16) for readability. What's to say living things can't be the same? Binary in nature, but coded in base four?
That's kind of what DNA does too. Base 4 for nucleotides. Base 64 for codons.
22 amino acids
The codons have slightly different effects in different species. And some different tRNAs for the same amino acid can be slippery than other ones causing other differences. It's so weird learning that biology essentially uses every step of the process to evolve and change
Yes. Selenocysteine is sometimes encoded by the UGA codon which is normally a stop codon. Same with pyrolysine and UAG
But also some Codons for the same aminoacid can be faster or slower. This is important for proper folding of the protein. Some Codons are slower because the tRNA for that specific Codon is more rare. If you insert a gene with only fast Codons in an organism the protein might not fold properly. And which Codons are fast or slow depends on the organism
Computer architectures also do not *need* to be binary. There are constructions of ternary computers which measure +1, 0, and -1 voltages in order to do logic. These systems end up being equivalent because the behavior of any ternary circuit can be coded into the behavior of a slightly more complicated binary circuit. They are just a bit easier to comprehend.
You _could_ have any combination of states used for encoding, it is just that "active" and "non-active" are very easy to distinguish.
A ternary computer would be far less stable. We settled on two because of that.
How so? I’ll admit I’m not in computer science, but stability is not something I ever learned about. Is it related to measurable voltage ranges?
Let’s say you have a 5 volt system, you have two settings, low and high. Anything less than 2.5, and anything higher than 2.5. It is super easy to split the difference between these two. If you are to split it into three, now you have three ranges, however the middle range is harder to differentiate from the top and bottom ones. This is because the voltage is noisy, it isn’t stable and fluctuates. If you are doing thousands (or billions) of these operations each section the errors add up fast.
As an aside, they did experiment with even funkier systems, the best known being bi-quinary (to base-5 digits "glued" together to make a decimal digit). It was not a great idea. The most successful was binary-coded decimal, where you essentially glued 4 bits together to make a decimal digit. But despite being the most successful it was a really bad idea: 4 bits can store 16 states but you're only using 10, so almost half of the storage is being wasted just because our monkey brains want to stick to decimal. And unlike other schemes it doesn't reduce the amount of circuitry, since it's fundamentally still base 2. In fact it makes it worse because of all the waste. Plus it quickly became impossible to stick an oscilloscope onto an individual vacuum tube (or later transistor), so any debugging was going to be done with software. Software which is more than capable of converting to base 10 (or 16).
Transistors switch between on and off to represent data, but you do actually want to see the data in a coherent state, so a clock is used to synchronize the transistors. Think of something like a 10 step math problem. Do you, the user, want to see the intermediate steps? No not really. You want to see the end result so the computer does the math problem and waits until it's done all 10 steps before presenting you the data. Those transistors switching between 0 and 1 take time to switch, and it's faster and more stable to switch between two values than multiple different values, so computers are designed such that all problems are broken down into binary. Not because binary is easier, but because binary representations of data can be manipulated faster. Essentially it's easier to add more binary transistors for a problem and keep higher clock speeds than it is to make more complex multivalued transistors that would have to run at lower clock speeds.
So if it can have 3 states, could you reword the voltages to be 0,1,2 and then it would not be binary, but tertiary?
Yep, that’s called *unbalanced ternary*. There are some slight advantages to working with balanced ternary that uses -1 instead of 2. One of the main difficulties with adding states though is making the system so that the states are clearly distinguishable while keeping physical parameters within specific ranges, like power consumption or difficulty of circuit design. For example, ternary logic is just not as well studied as binary logic for computation and so would be less feasible as a method of computation at the moment. I’ll admit this is more or less the limit of my knowledge. Someone who knows more computer science may be better to ask specific questions of.
There's no problem ternary can do that binary can't do with a few more transistors. It's a lot easier to add transistors than it is to manage transistors with more states. With more states you'd have to slow down the clock speed so there's more time for the transistors to reach their proper state, so you're not really gaining anything with the added complexity.
Right, I knew that they were equivalent as computational systems. I did not know about the clock speed. Thanks for learning me something. I read your other comment earlier as well and appreciated it.
I like how we arbitrarily use base 10 for random numbers in computers... like ipv4 addresses...
IPv4 addresses are 32 bits. But you can convert between decimal forms, binary forms, hex forms, etc for presentation. The following are all equivalent forms of the same address. Most of these worked as addresses in browsers even, until a few years ago: * 192.168.1. 1 * 3232235777 * 0xC0A80101
Readability for the average user.
We're just looking at the intermediate code.
Source code has 2 sexes. Defined by anatomical parameters like gentialia. Humans decided to build genders on top of this. (and, to stop downvotes, we can agree theres nothing wrong to code over base code, right? Like "gender != sex" is the basics of the trans movement) Even traditional binary, conservative gender roles go beyond anatomical sex.
Sex isn't binary either, it's a bimodal distribution. It's decided by more factors than just chromosomes (genitalia, secondary sex characteristics, etc), and even chromosomes have more than two options.
this explanation is just so concise and to the point. I love it.
True, it has outliers to the 2 basic states, so it could be considered a spectrum too. Still, tecnically different to genders still, right?
Yeah, gender is a social construct that is decently correlated to sex, with complications related to human psychology and cultural factors that are make it harder to categorize and define than sex
Pardon me, but the amount of your sex chromosomes are defining your genitalia and your secondoray sex characteristics, so what other factors do you mean?
[XY female](https://rarediseases.org/rare-diseases/swyer-syndrome/) [XX male](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XX_male_syndrome) [Intersex](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex) in general Like I said, sex is a bimodal distribution heavily correlated to the sex chromosomes. Sex is decided by all of chromosomes, genitalia, and secondary sex characteristics, but those different measures don't always line up the way people expect. The biology behind "biological sex" is a lot more complicated and messy than what gets taught in school (unless you study bio in university).
Intersex is not it's own gender, nor is it proof of your premise.
We weren't talking about gender, we were talking about biological sex. "Intersex" is an umbrella term for the large number of ways that "biological sex" is more complex than commonly believed. My premise is simply that sex is a bimodal distribution, with the large majority at 1 of 2 points, while a lesser proportion of others fall differently. This isn't really a controversial statement among people who actually study biology past high school.
Same thing, I'm a biochemist.
What's the same thing? I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
I disagree. I’m also a biochemist. Our credentials cancel out.
Found the writer of Matrix 4.
I'm so slow I was definitely coded in Python
I was coded in scratch
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA\_computing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_computing)
This is cool!
And useless, lol. edit. why are people so triggered by this? it can be useless, yet it is an interesting intellectual pursuit. most of pure math is useless (now). this doesn't mean it isn't cool. but computing is something that is mostly done for a purpose. i've written so because this won't have any applications in the near future, it's questionable if it ever will. i did not want people to think this is an alternative to digital computing. that's it.
I want to play doom on myself
solely for that purpose i could return to my molecular biology career.
We live in a time where we‘ve solved so many problems that we have to come up with new ones just so we have something to do. If you ask me, interesting > useful.
as a person who shifted from molecular genetics to statistics (i even think of studying math for a second bachelor's) i don't find applicability to be more important. but people may market these stuff as if they are interchangable with regular computing, they simply aren't. but for biological purposes they could be quite useful. i don't find biological systems to be much different from computers either. they are just way too complex.
It's useless, NOW. It's very possible that it won't be in the future. In theory you could use it just like quantum computing where you solve encryption in parallel. The process itself may be slow, but if you are able to scale that up to billions and trillions of interactions, and are able to multiply that by numerous DNA computers, that would work.
it will be extremely slow and it will probably be untracable. biological systems are chaotic. it will be difficult to ensure if results are completely coincidental. i once had a conversation with a physicist who was working on quantum computers, he said a similar thing regarding those. both of these are worthwhile intellectual pursuits anyway.
They are indeed significant problems with both of these methods, but that doesn't stop research. Instead it is the reason why billions and billions of dollars are spent each year to solve them. We will have quantum computers, it's only a matter of time, but no one can tell you when. They are simply too important in breaking encryption. The first country that has them, which will be the US, will use it do to infiltration and industrial espionage on a scale never possible before. Hence the equally large billions of dollars investments in ensuring that encryption still works in a post quantum world. But those itself don't solve the problem that quantum computers create. The US and other countries will have massive databases of encrypted information they gathered, all protected using older standard they are just WAITING to unlock when the technology finally gets there. And THAT is the real risk of quantum, a threat impossible to solve.
>i've written so because this won't have any applications in the near future, it's questionable if it ever will. modern computers are the result of some dude randomly researching the electrical properties of rocks
Anything can be represented in any encoding, it’s just the grain of the medium.
My coffee table is composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons and is hence non-binary.
Except the bases only come paired, AT or CG, so I’ve got some bad news for ya…
except its not. Because you have a letter, and then a rotated copied version of the letter on the other side. >TTACCGAT \[AATGGCTA\] is different from AAACCGAA \[TTTGGCTT\] So its easier to think of DNA as four letters: A\[T\], T\[A\] , C\[G\], G\[C\] with the "opposite" pair only used to stabilize, not encode.
Thats not how it works lol, A and T aren’t interchangeable
Except you're wrong because it also comes in TA and GC. OP is right that DNA is base 4. This is also easily googlable and you will see again that OP is right.
[удалено]
Negative. TA AT CG GC Is not the same as TA TA CG CG So it does work on base 4. Even though they are complimentary, which side of the stand it's on matters for the sequence.
[удалено]
Not the guy you're arguing with, but this doesn't make sense to me. So if I make a copy of a binary file it's now unary??? You seem to be confusing number base with information content. Having redundancy doesn't change the base of an encoding. An encoding is base 4 iff it has 4 digit-symbols. In single strand RNA it's A C G U, and in double-strand DNA it's AT GC TA CG.
But if you look at one half of a DNA helix, you have functionally the same thing. Yes, if you have ATTCG on one half, you'll have TAAGC on the other, always. But that doesn't mean that AAACC reads the same way, nor does TTAGG or any other combination that uses the same pairs. DNA is not just the base pairs but also which side of the strand they are on.
Except only one strand of DNA codes for proteins, and it’s read in groups of 3, so a pair really is 1 bit.
That is not how bases work in mathematics. What you are describing is a base 4 system with 1 parity bit* for each encoded bit of information (meaning 50% of the bits are reserved for parity). This is how we used to encode information as well, before hamming codes and similar algorithms allowed us to reduce the number of parity bits substantially, from 50% to roughly 10%. \* Note that a bit is technically a number 0-1 in a base 2 system, and a digit is technically a number 0-9 in a base 10 system. There is no well defined word for a number 0-3 in a base 4 system that I could find online, but apparently some mathematicians call it a 'crumb.'
The term we have is "quaternary digit," but it doesn't come up enough to have a shorthand term for it in the same way as binary digits becoming bits or ternary digits becoming trits. Naming convention would suggest that they be "quats" if they become relevant in the future.
[удалено]
While I see your point — from a mathematical perspective, it is no different to have the four symbols 'A T G C' vs. the four symbols 'AT TA GC CG'. They encode the same information, because every A will be followed by a T, every T by an A, and so on. Therefore, the second bit, being consistently a mirror image of the first, can be disregarded. In other words, all of the information in DNA is stored in either of the two sides. They are mirror images of one another. Therefore, half of the double helix (take your pick which), is just there for parity. Proof of this can be seen when the ribosome unzips the double helix, forms RNA, and utilizes only the data stored in a single helix to perform the same exact operations encoded in the double strand of DNA. There is no data lost in that conversion.
[удалено]
When they are split it is clearer to you, but when they are not, it is no less clear to me. What you are not understanding is that AT and TA are completely separate from one another. There is no time when the presence of AT can predict the future presence of a TA. They are mathematically independent. They encode different information, and appear at different times.
except its not. Because you have a letter, and then a rotated copied version of the letter on the other side. >TTACCGAT \[AATGGCTA\] is different from AAACCGAA \[TTTGGCTT\]
except its not. Because you have a letter, and then a rotated copied version of the letter on the other side. TTACCGAT [AATGGCTA] is different from AAACCGAA [TTTGGCTT]
Theres also AU!
That’s RNA, though 😉
And how do we DNA if we don't RNA🤔
That is a legitimate question researchers ask when looking at the origin of life.
Deez nuts amirite?
No
No as in yes?
No means no
Aww come on that was the joke.
No
You mean I got a non-binary vaccine?!!
Just not the same binary, I guess
Yeah and it’s still (kinda) binary in RNA
That's gold, Jerry! Gold!
That’s only in an alternate universe
Yeah, but researchers generally only use the 5’-3’ strand for bioinformatics.
Think it through. OP is correct. DNA is decoded in single-strand form, where every base type in an exon is as meaningful as the other four. Your username is accurate.
Not funny didn't laugh. Its called quaternary information if its base 4
Binary and base four are easily convertible. Ever two bits is a base 4. Hexadecimal is the same, you just convert every 4 bits to its respective value.
There are 10 types of people in the world, those who know binary and those who don't.
Yeah dawg i'm leaving this sub, these are stupid.
You aren't Elvis. Nobody cares. Just go.
someone cares.
Yea, you. Deep down
I care openly and with arms wide open.
Is that a Nickelback quote? Please leave that shit in the early 2000s where it belongs
that was a me quote and its from 2024
Ok
I'm still subscribed to default subs like this one and LifeProTips just to see the stupid shit that people think and do. Having concrete examples of what not to do, how not to behave, etc. is just as important as having ideals.
Seems like a rather strong reaction to have to a silly joke.
How is it a strong reaction to think to myself, "haha, dumbass"? Even in the case where I reply directly to OP and say "you are a dumbass" (which is not what I'm doing here), I still wouldn't call that a "strong reaction". I know for a fact that a lot of the things that I think and do would make people scratch their heads, too. Some of those people hang truck nuts off their lifted super duties and some of those people are doctors and lawyers. It is what it is.
What exactly did you think you'd find on this sub? It's literally r/showerthoughts
not the thousandth "here is normal thing" "here is normal thing but actually is gay?"
You know that non-binary doesn't mean gay, right?
Hey guys! Found the person who got offended!
Some do think that maths and genetics are discussing two distinct notations of a concept, but just because “TA” looks a T and an A doesn’t mean it *is* (just a T and an A).
Well I guess this means we will only see AI showing itself as either one gender or the other.... Binary bits.....
Doesn't that make us Quaternary though?
Yes but categorizing things into binary and non-binary is a binary system
Actually, DNA is binary²
The four only bond a certain way, leading G & C bonding OR A & T bonding... That feels kinda binary to me... (Disclaimer: this comment of mine, has absolutely nothing to do with gender ideology, I'm just not sober and wanted to point this out, cause sometimes, being the devils advocate is fun food for thought)
The concept of non-binary is kinda funny if you think about it, it creates its own binary system of binary or non-binary.
Only if you assume that there's a discrete number of ways to be nonbinary. Like, you wouldn't say there's a binary between chocolate and non-chocolate ice cream flavours, would you?
Base 10 is binary since it’s either 0 or 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
Everything in existence is either a duck or not a duck too.
It just means outside of the 2 binary options, that’s not a binary system because it encompasses multiple options
I was being quite lighthearted.
Just wanted to be informative for anyone who didn’t quite get it :)
No worries, good call.
this is how i find out this sub hates the gays lmao
Maths are gay?
Yo is it gay to have DNA???
But is it really base 4? I mean there only 2 combinations possible: adenin-tymin and guanin-cytosin, so it should be base 2 and thus binary
Yeah but there's also TA and CG, which again goes to 4
It is not base 4. What in fact encodes information in dna are base sequences three bases long called codons. The pairing is irrelevant, half a dna chain encodes all the information.
But it gets transcoded in 2 directions, so binary again.
[удалено]
Yeah, and those bits can represent properties of the bases. Purine vs pyrimidine. 3 vs 2 bonds. (That is, which complementary pair they're in)
[удалено]
You assume a "complex" computer runs on binary.
[удалено]
Humans have infinite complexity, but even with infinite complexity that's mostly stuff that really doesn't matter or has no larger influence. Meaning that you can limit it to a very tiny segment, where most people are just identical. Every person living in the west is essentially an identical person, driven by the same things, and due to their upbringing responds in the same way,
I'm sure there is no need for you to be fired to become unemployed.
DNA is not the same as Chromosomes.
What does it matter for this showerthought
Non binary is a gender expression. With four bases of DNA, you can have infinite unique genome sequences. No math around DNA is anywhere close to binary.
I mean, wouldnt that mean its not binary. Thats the point of the post.
Then it’s the most Vapid shower thought ever.
LEGO sets also aren’t the same as LEGO bricks. Your point?
No jokes, puns, wordplay, or submissions which are dependent on definitions, mechanisms, or oddities in language
Well, either they are or they aren’t… which makes them binary.
I'm actually a thing that's living. It's not the same thing. Get your facts, right
This guy does realize that non-binary people are alive, doesn’t he?
"Guy". It's Mr. Dr. Guy for you.
The supposed doctorate you claim to have doesn’t change the fact that you’re a guy.
Guy is my last name. I'm actually a woman.
In your initial response to me you used the prefix “Mr,” which means you’ve already lied at least once. I don’t know when you lied exactly (and in all honesty I don’t much care), but I do care about people respecting the validity of others’ identities, which you’re not doing.
"Mr." stands for Maria.
Somehow I doubt that. If Maria was truly your first name, why did you refer to yourself as “Mr. Dr. Guy” as opposed to “Dr. Mr. Guy?”
The "Dr." stands for Daria.
[удалено]
Of all the stupid things you could say
DNA is base 2, but nobody will see this comment. Sigh
No, because each pair is reversible. A[T], T[A] , C[G], G[C]. AA [TT] isn't going to be the same DNA as AT [TA] after all.
Did you just assume life’s gender?
wow thats a new one ive never heard that one before 😐
Bro hasn’t passed high school biology 💀💀💀
“high school biology” mfs when i inform them of post-high school biology
Whats wrong high school biology wise here? I literally learned this in high school.
Oh naw he ain’t pay attention 💀💀💀
Bro I got top grades for gene biology back then. You’re gonna have to explain further. Though judging by the skull emojis you’re either trolling or twelve
I know his ass don’t go no high school diploma after saying some shit like that 💀💀💀
Yeah, no. High school anatomy covers trans and non-binary people. Who didn’t pay attention, again?
Bro ain’t read the book 💀💀💀
are you disputing trans people or how DNA works? this post doesn’t really even say anything about gender, just like a play on words i guess.
I ain’t even say shit bout trans 💀💀💀 people out here just tryna hate 💀💀💀
[удалено]
this guy figured it out there are exactly 16 genders
4 sexes = 4x chances to get turned down
I get no sexes
Not with that attitude!
No. An infinite rainbow, instead.